Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] Opposing the last call made on the review policy

Andrew Alston Andrew.Alston at
Mon Dec 3 08:54:46 UTC 2018

Firstly –

I did not attempt to – nor did I – absolve ANYONE of the responsibility for this.

I DO believe this should have been disclosed publically – and in fact if you read many of my responses – I implied (and should have been more blunt) that this issue should have come up in staff assessments of this policy – and this policy has been around for a long time.

I merely stated that the data loss that occurred – did not occur under the current management watch – that is fact – that in no way absolves current management or board from the issue of disclosure – it also in no way absolves the previous management from disclosure.

I cannot speak to if this issue was ever brought to the boards attention – either by current or previous management – because *IF* I have knowledge that it was – I would be prohibited from sharing that – and if it wasn’t, well – then I’m trying to prove a negative.  What I can state categorically – is that the lack of disclosure on this is an issue – and I believe that the staff assessment failed when considering this in light of the policy due to this lack of disclosure.


From: Chevalier du Borg <virtual.borg at>
Sent: 03 December 2018 11:50
To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at>
Cc: akin.akinfenwa at; AfriNIC RPD MList. <rpd at>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Opposing the last call made on the review policy

Le sam. 1 déc. 2018 à 13:06, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at<mailto:Andrew.Alston at>> a écrit :

I look forward to the public clarification – but I can assure you that a portion of documentation was corrupted and is gone – that being – all attachments to all applications prior to a certain date.  That means – any diagrams included in motivations – any supplementary documentation – any motivations written outside of the body of email – before a certain date – is all gone.

In staff assessment, staff did not say they don't have competence to carry out review. It not your place as non-staff to question that. That is role of board.

That cannot be rectified – the data is gone – for good – and I might add this did NOT happen under the watch of the current CEO – he was not employed by AfriNIC if my timeline is correct – I am not sure if the same can be said for the current hostmaster.

Another disgraceful addition to this ongoing rhetorique: "every thing bad with AFRINIC is due to ex CEO and ex board (any board of which we were not member). our board/new CEO are new saviour of AFRINIC"

If what you accuse is true

i)  Is ex CEO responsible for not having discover this 3 years after he has leave?
ii) Is it ex CEO that has fail at responsibility to disclose this loss
iii) Is it ex CEO that is the manager of current hostmaster that you have blame

  Quite frankly though – I have no interest in attributing blame

You just do exactly that above. It not first time

– I am however curious as to how we can have an audit policy that is fair and equitable when one of the criterion for audit has to be the reasons originally clearly stated for the need for IP (the needs based justification) – and I can clearly demonstrate in multiple cases that such motivation was found in attachments and documents which no longer exist (based on the content of the body of emails I have that refer to said attachments)

As such – the policy cannot go ahead in its current form – and this should have been picked up and stated in the staff assessment – but – the staff have been entirely silent on their loss of data

It is not job of external person to question capability of company to do it job. CEO and his staff, have not say they cannot implement. If they cannot, maybe this community shall consider replace all of them and find people who can do the job of ensure resource is being use as applied for.


From: Timothy Ola Akinfenwa <akin.akinfenwa at<mailto:akin.akinfenwa at>>
Date: Saturday, 1 December 2018 at 11:51
To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at<mailto:Andrew.Alston at>>
Cc: Mark Elkins <mje at<mailto:mje at>>, rpd List <rpd at<mailto:rpd at>>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Opposing the last call made on the review policy

On Sat, 1 Dec 2018, 9:40 AM Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at<mailto:Andrew.Alston at> wrote:

AfriNIC HAS *NEVER* publicly acknowledged the loss of a large portion of attachments associated with application documents.  How is it that when we talk about audit and staff assessment – that it does not come to light to the community that Afrinic does not even have a large amount of documentation associated with the applications that would demonstrate how they were applied for?
This will be serious if true. I think the AFRINIC CEO should provide clarification to this. I will not like to be misled. Just in case this claim is true, has it been remedied? When too?

This documentation I still maintain is critical for a fair audit that covers all aspects – and if you do not have said documentation for ALL members – to act on it against SOME members would be prejudicial.
I agree with you on this, only if the above is confirmed to be correct.

So to refer to staff assessment – how was THIS not brought up in staff assessment – and does this not put paid to the lie that the staff assessment in and of itself is flawed?
This has to be clarified too, just only if and only if your previous assertion was true!


From: Timothy Ola Akinfenwa <akin.akinfenwa at<mailto:akin.akinfenwa at>>
Date: Saturday, 1 December 2018 at 11:23
To: Mark Elkins <mje at<mailto:mje at>>
Cc: rpd List <rpd at<mailto:rpd at>>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Opposing the last call made on the review policy

Hello Mark,
See responses in-line
On Sat, 1 Dec 2018, 8:52 AM Mark Elkins <mje at<mailto:mje at> wrote:

From what Andrew is saying - the policy should never have gone to last call if there have been no changes. That's how the PDP process is meant to work. In reality - if the whole community accepted seeing a policy for the second time - then fair enough - but that is NOT the case here. I strongly oppose this policy. I have also watched the antics of the people pushing this policy and I think it was extremely rude and totally out of place for one of their party to call someone else in the room a "visitor" - suggesting that that other person had no rights to be present. The person being subjected to this treatment provided much needed input (and policies) to the Policy Development Process - especially regarding IPv6 - which is our future.
We should have no place for Name Calling.
Not speaking for the person here, but I remembered watching it remotely where the said person clarified his statement.

I never heard an apology either.
I think you should watch again, the person apologised if his statement has been misinterpreted and even heard applause from the room afterwards.

Anyway - I believe that the PDP Co-Chairs have made a mistake and this Policy has not reached a positive Consensus (actually quite the opposite to Positive). It should not be at last call.

The Policy - if used - is also extremely dangerous to the existence and financial well being of the Company (AFRINIC).
It really should be withdrawn.
I thought Staff Assessment was conducted. I believe this must have been sorted out and necessary clarification provided.
On 12/1/18 9:15 AM, Andrew Alston wrote:
Sorry – I need to correct something in my email below –

I said there were no _substantive_ changes since the last rejection of this policy – this is inaccurate – there were *NO* - changes – substantive or otherwise – zero – zip – none – as per the website which publishes draft 6


From: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at><mailto:Andrew.Alston at>
Date: Saturday, 1 December 2018 at 09:27
To: "aleruchichuku at"<mailto:aleruchichuku at> <aleruchichuku at><mailto:aleruchichuku at>, Daniel Yakmut <yakmutd at><mailto:yakmutd at>, Daniel Yakmut via RPD <rpd at><mailto:rpd at>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Opposing the last call made on the review policy


While I agree with everything you have said – let us also be pragmatic.  This policy is pushed by the same crowd that walked to the microphone and agreed at the request of the community to drop another policy, and then reneged on it.  This policy has been rejected, as has the soft landing policy, over and over again – yet the authors do not give a damn about the will of the community or the good of the community.  Go and watch the videos of the Mauritian policy meeting – you will notice the same people involved in what happened there are involved in this policy as well.

The authors have clearly demonstrated that they care not a whit about what this community wants or believes is good for it, they have demonstrated bad faith, and shown that the only thing they care about is shoving something through no matter the consequence – and the co-chairs have already shown that they either do not understand the concept of consensus – or simply do not care.  Fact is – there is precedent on co-chairs being overturned on appeal in another RIR – and when it happened – the person who was overturned – ceased to be a co-chair.  These co-chairs however are insistent on a path that ignores the consensus process, and seem hell bent on forcing a situation where they are overturned – yet again – or failing that forcing AfriNIC into an untenable and potentially costly process beyond the appeal process.

Reality is – there were _no_ substantive changes to this policy from the last time it was rejected – and the objections to the policy that were stated back then have never been withdrawn, and by lack of changes in the text can be clearly demonstrated to not have been addressed – this flies in the very face of the definition of consensus – the co-chairs however simply do not care.

Welcome to what our PDP process has become – the bullying of the minority supported by co-chairs who do not understand consensus – to push through agendas that have zero to do with the good of the community and more to do with standing your ground to prove that you can.

And btw – before I’m attacked – yes – I have proposed some controversial policies over the years – fact is – all of them were withdrawn when the community wanted that.


From: aleruchi chuku via RPD <rpd at><mailto:rpd at>
Reply-To: "aleruchichuku at"<mailto:aleruchichuku at> <aleruchichuku at><mailto:aleruchichuku at>
Date: Saturday, 1 December 2018 at 07:02
To: Daniel Yakmut <yakmutd at><mailto:yakmutd at>, Daniel Yakmut via RPD <rpd at><mailto:rpd at>, rpd List <rpd at><mailto:rpd at>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Opposing the last call made on the review policy

It's very sad that this policy still lingers like a nightmare after it has been rejected over and over again. It has consistently bred anger and mistrust.
Please for the sake of unity, I will advice the chairs to do what is right by the people. DROP THIS POLICY.

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android<>

On Sat, 1 Dec 2018 at 4:15 am, Daniel Yakmut via RPD
<rpd at><mailto:rpd at> wrote:
RPD mailing list
RPD at<mailto:RPD at><>


RPD mailing list

RPD at<mailto:RPD at><>


Mark James ELKINS  -  Posix Systems - (South) Africa

mje at<mailto:mje at>       Tel: +27.128070590  Cell: +27.826010496

For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA:<>
RPD mailing list
RPD at<mailto:RPD at><>
RPD mailing list
RPD at<mailto:RPD at><>

Borg le Chevalier
"Common sense is what tells us the world is flat"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list